Waikiki Vigilante

HONOLULU -- Watch out, Hawaii. Waikiki has a new vigilante on the loose.

Armed with a sledgehammer and a self-righteous mission, State Rep. Tom Brower (D.) walks his district's streets and parks looking for the nefarious shopping carts used by homeless people.

If the carts have a store's insignia still on them, Brower gallantly returns them to the rightful owner. If, however, he can't tell where the carts originated from, he pulls out his trusty sledgehammer.

"If I see shopping carts that I can't identify," he told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, "I will destroy them so they can't be pushed on the streets."

(Before you judge, note that he kindly takes out any belongings in the carts and leaves them on the ground where he found them.)

Brower, according to the Star-Advertiser, is "disgusted" by the city's chronic homelessness problem and has decided to take a self-proclaimed "tough-guy" approach to solving it. In addition to his shopping cart rampage, he also rouses homeless people if he sees them sleeping at bus stops during the day.

"If someone is sleeping at night on the bus stop, I don't do anything," he told the Star-Advertiser. "But if they are sleeping during the day, I'll walk up and say, 'Get your ass moving.'"

You can't expect tourists, spending thousands of dollars, to visit the place to be dodging homeless with shopping carts while trying to go out to lunch.

Tourism is big money in Hawaii. There are probably fewer traveling there in this economy, and the state can't afford to lose any more of them.

Crime and beggars have stopped us from going downtown Chicago for weekend getaways. Some beggars get pushy, too pushy. Don't think we would have gone as often as we did if we had to dodge homeless with shopping carts full of whatever. (We used to get lakefront rooms for $60-$80 on hotwire.)

Well, Octo that is just awful. I feel your pain-your trips just ruined by all those nasty, unattractive, and pushy homeless people. It makes you almost think that perhaps it is time to do something constructive about homelessness?

I just read the article to my husband, Pnbrown, and he said, "Oh, ya? Let him try to wake ME up if I'm homeless and sleeping on a bus bench!"

Knowing my husband's many talents and abilities, I'm picturing poor Tommy boy, much the worse for wear, waddling really fast toward the nearest ER to have a sledge hammer extricated from his rear end.

Note that I did not include a wink or smiley face at the end of the previous paragraph.

My husband says it wouldn't even have to happen to him, personally... if he saw someone aggressively beating the shopping cart of a homeless person or accosting them, he would gladly rush to the rescue of that homeless person.

What is this Democrat Representative nutball thinking? What happens when he runs into the wrong homeless person, who doesn't happen to mind putting a little hurtin' on the aggressor with the sledge hammer, and has the size and capability to do just that? How does he know that homeless man isn't an ex Green Beret, or Ranger with a bad case of PTSD, a lot of anger, and no medication?

Or what if he disturbs a homeless female with bad memories of rape, who just happens to have a very sharp knife or maybe even a little snub nosed revolver tucked away, but handy enough to protect herself?

That homeless person he thinks is a nobody could be a very dangerous individual when provoked or scared.

Wouldn't it be more, oh... Statesman-like and appropriate... to attack the problem of homelessness logically from it's root causes... instead of with a sledge hammer and no common sense?

And, you know... I just feel oh, so bad for all those poor tourists who will have to deal with some discomfort while they enjoy their lobster lunches... you know, the discomfort of the gritty realities of homelessness and other issues prevalent in society today... I say, oozing sarcasm.

Democrat or Republican, an idiot is an idiot. And this guy is a real winner... of the award for stupidity and lack of common sense!

Sounds like the town where I live. Here homeless people were sleeping on benches in the park which is in the central business district. So guess what the city council did? They removed the benches so now NO ONE can park their butts downtown!

"Sounds like the town where I live. Here homeless people were sleeping on benches in the park which is in the central business district. So guess what the city council did? They removed the benches so now NO ONE can park their butts downtown!"

They removed the downtown benches in my town to discourage loitering on the street. The reasoning was that people downtown should be shopping inside the stores or standing up if it's a sidewalk sale event.

The parks have plenty of benches, but one would be really crazy to sleep out; the mosquitoes would get one in summer and the cold would kill one in winter. On the rare occasion a homeless person ends up here, a church takes them in.

"Now that the issue of shopping carts is on our minds," Brower said, "the question is are we going to move forward and try to solve it or just let it become status quo.""

When Brower said "shopping carts," I read "homeless people"; I think the sledgehammer is a metaphor; that's what Brower felt it took to bring attention to the homeless problem/plight. Gutsy move, and hopefully an effective one. Sounds like some are only looking at the obvious; try to see the positive effects this episode may (hopefully) have. Hint: I'm not talking about hiding the homeless away from those who find the sight of them offensive.

Wait. Am I reading code? Is that possible if the code is for something positive, or can code only be used with nefarious intent? Rhetorical questions, both.

I would be interested in his voter's reaction to this politician's response to the manner in which the homeless attempt to survive their life. Are the voters repelled? Approving? Delighted? If so, by what percentage?

I fear he may be playing to the voter block he understands. I hope he ends up badly misjudging his voting audience.

I take it that as he carries his sledge hammer as he patrols, he doesnt also come up with viable long term solutions for the homeless in his ares, as well as solutions for safe places the homeless can to go when they need to sit and rest their feet after walking for hours, much like that politician will do when he has been on his feet stumping for votes for hours at a time.

"Sure it is, Elvis! That's why we have fields of study called rhetorics, semiotics, linguistics and other pursuits devoted to parsing and translating the codes we humans call language."

No doubt. How do we know they are right? And who here is qualified to wear the hat of official and unfailingly correct judge of code translation? I need to know whom to defer to. Who is the Grand Master of code, the one who judges the proper time to really stick it to us lesser beings who blunder into Codeland, unarmed with such knowledge?

Or does one just "know," I wonder; maybe one just acquires a "feel for it." With a little reinforcement from llike-minded folks, one's perception could just become their reality.

There are SO MANY homeless in Hawaii. There are tent cities on every island.

Tourists do not want to see it, that's the truth. Who wants to be reminded on vacation? Everyone wants vacation to be Disneyland, and Hawaii is a very disney-fied vacation destination. There are the hula girls, the surfer boys, Don Ho and all the tacky tacky that the tourists just eat up. Very few people actually experience their vacation, it's just one big colorful Hilton experience.

That NY Times story is from 2011. Since then there has been a (successful) effort to keep people from camping on beaches anywhere in Hawaii.

I don't know what the 'answer' is. Many homeless people are mentally ill. Have you ever tried to get a delusional person into care or off the street if that is where he wants to be? This isn't just a problem in Hawaii!

A friend's DD is schizophrenic. She travels from state to state in warm climates, registering for welfare and living pretty rough -- because she is a lost soul. She's not dangerous, except to herself. One of the places she and others -- including just plain 'drop-outs' -- go is on Kauai. Big Island also has quite a 'settlement' of all kinds of people, including a lot of druggies, living rough. The western beaches of Oahu have the same thing.

It would seem obvious that part of the problem is caused by a health care system that isn't easily accessible or affordable... and the ACA will take time to become a smoothly operating system, which will hopefully be a stepping stone on the way to a system similar to those of other nations... a minimum wage that has not kept pace with the cost of living in general, which has risen exponentially... a lack of skilled and unskilled employment... and many other variables.

The problems and their underlying causes are fairly clear... and it's not that unclear what could be done to alleviate a lot of the issues...

A friend's DD is schizophrenic. She travels from state to state in warm climates, registering for welfare and living pretty rough -- because she is a lost soul. She's not dangerous, except to herself. One of the places she and others -- including just plain 'drop-outs' -- go is on Kauai. Big Island also has quite a 'settlement' of all kinds of people, including a lot of druggies, living rough. The western beaches of Oahu have the same thing.

*

So if this woman travels "from state to state" and can obviously travel to Kauai, Hawaii, what is she doing "registering for welfare?"

I'm leaning toward what chisue brought up: a place for the displaced, a sort of giant homeless shelter with all the services available in one spot instead of piecemeal, as they are now. As I posted above, healthcare, food, education (could be job training), etc.

There would have to be guidelines/rules. No unhealthful foodstuffs, no unhealthful habits, no unauthorized procreation, no wasted time. Get those folks back on their feet pronto, if they are able, and treatment if they are not.

Some here seem to think these are mainly 'normal' folks. Well...there may be some, but I see more 'marginal' ones. You can offer services, but it just doesn't -- or hasn't -- worked.

Demifloyd -- Hearing about my friend's DD made me aware of a whole subculture I didn't know existed. You can get around very cheaply on busses and even as a standby on planes. This IS welfare. This gal is mid-forties now. I don't know how she has survived -- same with the DD of another friend who has ingested every street drug known to mankind and slept with who knows how many men. Yet...there they are. There may BE no way to 'manage' this that's any better than what we are doing now. I think this is what welfare is supposed to do, isn't it? Keep people alive? (Not everyone is a candidate for 'rehabilitation', and we don't have 'homes' for the poor or deranged.)

Hawaii does have a housing shortage. There's no such thing there as 'affordable'! 'Normal" people work three jobs to afford to eat and live in tiny homes. (Maybe not so different in Manhattan?) Electricity and gasoline are usually way more expensive in Hawaii, and most food is imported.

I suddenly remembered an episode of Family Guy in which Brian says something to the effect of... "if we could just buy a great big farm and let them all run free and happy..." as he tries hard to impress a date in a conversation on minorities and prejudices...

"That NY Times story is from 2011. Since then there has been a (successful) effort to keep people from camping on beaches anywhere in Hawaii."

There are, today, some areas of Hawaii where you can go and hike into and, illegally, but easily enough, live out in the "wilderness". You can grow some pot for a cash crop if you need the money, eat fish and trap goats and have a pretty good life.

I know of some very well educated, well off, well adjusted people who do this as a "vacation" for months at a time.

I'm not going to begrudge a homeless person a stolen cart. I generally take the attitude that, if someone's this desperate, they're welcome to it.

People also assume that those like the "daughter of a friend" want to be "rehabilitated". There are many subcultures, just look at those who used to follow Grateful Dead and now follow Phish...or the Rainbow People.

Hay, indeed there are.

Hawaii does have a housing shortage but in general is just like California. If a person is living in Del Mar or Kula on a teacher's salary they will need another job and still be living in a studio. If they are living in Puna or Desert Hot Springs they can buy a very nice house for well under 100k and live quite nicely.

Electricity again is comparable to California, but the food is much more expensive IF one is buying imported food. There are great farmers markets and if one knows how to fish or hunt or garden it's a year round thing over there. If you want to eat asparagus from the grocery out of season, be prepared to pay $6 a pound.

Anyone who reads Lee Child knows that the main character is a loner, a drifter who prefers not to be a part of normal society. He owns no home, carries no luggage in his travels, and just does what we might call... "wandering", seeing where the day may take him... or what Youngquinn might know as "walkabout". ;-)

Grateful Dead, Phish, and other bands have their followers, a subculture of people who don't want to live the way traditional society says we should.

I was just reading a news article last night about a man who was arrested for fishing without a license... and he fought it, because as he told it, there's nothing that states a man can't feed himself, and why should he pay for that need? He lives a subsistence sort of life, living off the land, foraging for his food, and moving around to do so.

Of course, some of today's homeless are homeless as a result of trying to fit in with traditional society, but not being able to clear some of hurdles within that society.

And who says traditional society is the end all to end all, anyway?

I looked for the story about the guy who's defense was that he lived a natural subsistence lifestyle... but came up with this beauty, instead... which I think speaks to the issue of the OP in a much better way...

Enjoy...

"I don’t throw around the term “hero” lightly, but it takes a special kind of person to look at a homeless man on the street ��" with no home to stay warm in, little access to a shower or clean clothes, and few possessions ��" and decide that he’s got it too good. But Fox Business host John Stossel bravely took up that mantle Thursday morning during a guest appearance on Fox & Friends, warning viewers about the perniciousness of giving money to the poor.

Donning a fake beard, Stossel sat on a New York City sidewalk with a cardboard sign asking people for help. “I just begged for an hour but I did well,” he said. “If I did this for an eight-hour day I would’ve made 90 bucks. Twenty-three thou for a year. Tax-free.”

Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who recently purchased a $4 million home in Greenwich, gasped in horror at the prospect of poor people earning $23,000 a year. Some people asking for money “are actually scammers,” Hasselbeck warned, seemingly unaware of the irony that the only panhandling “scammer” Fox News identified was Stossel.

Because he was able to successfully convince good-hearted pedestrians that he was poor, Stossel went on to chastise people who gave the homeless money because, in his view, “most are not…for real.”

He implored viewers to stop giving money to poor people because if you do, “you’re an enabler.”

There are a multitude of incorrect claims and assumptions in this short segment:

$23,000 per year: Stossel spent a single hour on the streets and was given approximately $11 by people who wanted to help out someone in need. Therefore, Stossel assumes he would make $23,000 per year. (That figure is actually a steep drop from Stossel’s claims in the past, that he knew of beggars who made $80,000 per year panhandling.) There are a multitude of false assumptions here. First, one of the only scientific surveys of panhandlers found that the vast majority made $25 per day or less, annualized at just over $9,000. Second, $9,000 ��" or even $23,000 ��" is difficult to survive on, especially in a city like New York where the median apartment rents for more than $3,000 in Manhattan and more than $2,500 in Brooklyn. Third, spending 8 hours a day asking for money is time that can’t be spent going to classes, gaining skills, picking up diapers for a crying child, or interviewing for a job.

Homeless people “are actually scammers”: Hasselbeck noted that “scammers” were rife among beggars, implying that panhandling is some get-rich-quick scheme engaged in by hucksters. Stossel agreed, saying that most beggars were not “for real.” Their only evidence for this claim? The fact that Stossel spent an hour undercover as a homeless person and was able to fool people into believing he was needy. An actual study of beggars, on the other hand, found that 82 percent were homeless, two in three were disabled, most earned less than $25 per day, and nearly all used the money for food. If Stossel and Hasselbeck truly do believe there is a scourge of well-off people acting as though they’re impoverished so they can successfully panhandle ��" nobody’s idea of a fun time ��" what would Stossel have people do? Ask beggars for a tax return before giving them a buck?

Drugs and alcohol: Stossel cautions that well-intentioned people are actually enabling bad behavior because poor people will just use the money for drugs and alcohol. But that’s not what the data shows. While some do use the money for drugs and alcohol, most don’t. What did a survey find 94 percent of panhandlers used the money for? Food.

Chastising beggars is an annual tradition for Stossel: Pretending to be poor and homeless is becoming an annual tradition for Stossel. Here’s his 2011 segment, his 2012 segment, and now his 2013 segment. Some journalists use their perch to give voice to the voiceless. Stossel’s hobby horse, on the other hand, is apparently to convince Fox viewers that poor people are too well off.
Privilege: “I felt foolish and uncomfortable,” Stossel said of the experience, right after imploring viewers not to give poor people the dignity of believing they are actually poor instead of drunks, addicts, or scammers. Watching four wealthy white people sit in a New York television studio and banter about the evils of giving money to homeless people is like waking up the day after your 21st birthday: it’s not surprising, but still painful.

Only Stossel would be capable of benefiting from people’s generosity, and then deciding that they were rubes with too much holiday spirit and we should really all be grinches who are suspicious of one another. War on Christmas, indeed."

Jodi, the Stossel piece is just a little different without the biased commentary included in your cut 'n paste; and rightly so. I saw that piece (Stossel is interesting), warts and all. Don't take what you have read too much to heart.

Panhandling (aggressive begging) is distinct from homelessness, IMO. I entirely support a homeless person's right to be unmolested, and I do not see such a person as any less than any other. However, if you are begging because you are homeless, then please go to a shelter or avail yourself of the considerable support structure that exists. Don't harass me, I don't harass you.

How is it harassing to stand or sit somewhere holding a cup? If you don't want to be a generous kind of guy, walk past... if you do feel it's a nice gesture to help, then drop in a few coins or whatever. No one is forcing you to give.

I've never been harassed by anyone "panhandling". I've been asked if I had a spare cigarette, and I've been asked if I had any spare change, but I wouldn't call that harassment. I've had friends ask me those same questions, and I don't consider them to be harassing me.

Gosh... I find it sad to know that some people don't want to know about or see the realities that society has wrought, and would rather turn away and be housed behind a gate in a pristine area where everyone is the same financially and with regard to clothing and other materialistic holdings and accouterments... fie on the hungry and homeless... let them all fend for themselves... bootstraps, and all that rhetorical stuff.

I'm sorry... I just can't wrap my brain around some of the thoughts and ideas some people present...

jodi - Seems you think things that never happen to you, surely never happen to anyone else. Are you jealous or being dishonest?

You think it's sad that people don't want to see realities in society? You left it. Why don't you leave the peacful tranquility of your farm and come back to Chicago? You are missing so many realities! Hurry now. Sitting there on the farm surfing the internet and watching television is not reality. It does not count.

J, take a drive to south florida. The panhandlers try to sell you papers, wash your windshield, etc. That's aggressive, in my book. It's nonsense, as well.

Other places I've seen idlers on the sidewalks, often young males loudly accosting people for money, while the young women smirk in the background. It's uncomfortable, and it's unnecessary. You don't spend the whole blessed day sitting around in storefronts unless you've decided you like it or at least you're willing to subject yourself and others to it. I don't think it's callous to object to that sort of nonsense.

Why would I "come back" to Chicago when I was not born there, and didn't reside there beyond the time frame of about a year?

If I find it difficult to manage outside of a metropolitan area, how would moving to a city help?

I'm not the one that's uncomfortable viewing society from all sides. Your post makes no sense, whatsoever. What, do you think people are only homeless in Chicago and other big cities, or something?

And if you live in Chicago currently, it would seem more plausible that you would make an attempt at doing something about a problem that obviously bothers you, wouldn't it?

Florida isn't the only place with homeless or "panhandlers", either.

But Florida is warmer in winter, so it makes rational sense that more homeless would make their way south seasonally, doesn't it?

All we've ever had to do if someone tried to approach and wash a windshield or ask for spare change when we didn't have any was say, "No, thank you..." and we're left alone.

Where's the harassment in that?

If people are aggressive toward you, wouldn't that be more like assault or another crime than just harassment? And shouldn't you do something about that, like call the police or something instead of just saying that people are harassing you in the streets?

I must have missed the "unauthorized procreation" part, myself, Mylab... not that I want to open a discussion on eugenics, either.

"But Florida is warmer in winter, so it makes rational sense that more homeless would make their way south seasonally, doesn't it?"

Along with about half of the rest of the population, including myself :)

As I said, my belief is that people have a right to do and be as they wish. Another of my beliefs is that able-bodied people who wish to make no effort to do anything useful whatever should leave others out of it.

I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my idea about creating 'reservations' for these folks. You know, like Indian Reservations -- for another group that didn't want to live as we live. Out of sight; out of mind. Just herd them into some desolate part of "God's Country" and change the address on the welfare checks. If they want welfare, gotta stay on the res.

Another misconception is that people are able bodied and just lazy if they appear standing upright and are not seated in a wheelchair, or in a full body cast.

I look very able bodied on a good day, myself... but that by no means indicates that I am able or capable of working a 40 hour week in the kind of job I'd have to have in order to pay a mortgage or rent, pay utilities on that residence, maintain necessary transportation for work, or pay for all the other incidentals it takes to live as the general population of our society lives, and that's not including food.

So... just because you see a person standing upright, or not in a wheelchair, does not mean that person is able bodied or of sound mind to the point they could maintain the kind of lifestyle you think they should.

And besides... what makes you think they even want to maintain the kind of lifestyle society says is "normal"? Who gets to decide that? Who gets to decide what's normal?

It very well may be that a person standing on a corner holding a cup is doing all he or she can do just to hold that cup, just to maintain an upright, standing position! That person may be in excruciating pain, and just wants to gain enough change to eat a cheap meal so they can go sit or lie down for a while to take pressure off their spine, or legs, or feet.

One simply doesn't know... one cannot tell the ability or capability of a person just by looking at them.

It may be that person asking for change is not mentally capable of holding down a job or maintaining a residence.

I can tell you one thing I know for certain... I could never stand on a street or sidewalk for that long... for the length of time it would take to be generously given enough to grab a burger from the dollar menu at a fast food place. My spine and hips would never allow it. I would crumple before I got very much money, at all.

I don't know if you've ever noticed the time stamps on my posts... they vary greatly sometimes, depending on how long I can sit. Sometimes, I have to get up and move to a standing position, then to a prone position for a while. That's why my current job is so great... I am able to make my own schedule, as long as I accomplish what needs to be done.

But I could never sit, stand, or remain in one position for any great length of time on any given day. But if you met me in person, you'd never guess that... unless we spent more than a short amount of time together, in which case, I'd have to excuse myself and tell you that we needed to find a place to sit for a while.

So, you see... looks can be very deceiving. That's why it's so wise not to judge a book by its cover.

If you can stand on the side of the street and pretend that you want to wash windows for food (which in fact you don't want to, obviously), you can go to a grocery store and offer to wash their windows in exchange for food. Even easier, you can get plenty to eat from the dumpster. Gasp.

An enduring memory is going through the winn-dixie dumpster with my dad when we were broke, to get vegetables. He'd made some real stupid decisions for a smart guy, but he sure as hell was not going to beg.

It is simply nonsense. There is so much stuff available for free. If is merely about food and clothing, there is no need to beg, everyone knows that.

What kind of job do you know of, Pnbrown, that an average person without skills or an extended education could get that pays so well? And what sort of job could a disabled person get, and only have to put in a short schedule of hours in order to make bank?

And again, what makes you think that everyone on this planet should live as you live?

You know, the state and other people kind of frown on people just squatting on land they don't own, or growing food on it. And a lot of time, it seems that the homeless tend to band together for safety, and for survival, and there's more available when you're within the midst of civilization, like in or near a city.

Justification works both ways... how can anyone justify a lack of moral obligation to society's less fortunate?

If you've never been homeless... if you've never been caught in the cycle that creates... then you can't possibly know how difficult it is to get back to where you once might have been, financially speaking.

Putting it in rather basic terms... you can't get a decent job without an address, and you can't get an address without a job...

You can't obtain a state ID without a birth certificate, social security card, and other items that prove who you are and where you live... and if you don't have the money for the ID in the first place, there's no sense in walking into a DMV. And if you want a copy of your birth certificate, you have to prove who you are through certain other forms of identification, and you must come up with the money to obtain that copy, too. Certain forms of ID are not valid for use if they're expired, and certain forms are simply not accepted, and getting any of them renewed costs money... and the valid ID to prove who you are in the first place.

It's like a giant circle without an end. Once you slip down that ladder and lose your grip on the last rung... there are so many hurdles to jump in order to gain access again that some people just slip further into depression and give up... and those are the people who do have sound minds, and might be of sound or partially sound body.

Any 3rd world city with over a million people, you're going to find entire streets filled with thousands of homeless people sleeping on the sidewalks, door-steps, alcoves, etc. Designated areas for the homeless to sleep. Its just accepted that they do so - they have no place else to go. And they all clear out at dawn.

"I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my idea about creating 'reservations' for these folks. You know, like Indian Reservations -- for another group that didn't want to live as we live. Out of sight; out of mind. Just herd them into some desolate part of "God's Country" and change the address on the welfare checks. If they want welfare, gotta stay on the res."

I did; and was surprised you didn't comment. See 14:23 on Thursday. I was also surprised that the "procreation" comment, under possible rules for such an arrangement, didn't cause ears to prick up.

"I certainly hope that no one is buying into the antiquated nonsense that disabled people can't or won't work as the non-disabled. Most disabled people work and want to work."

People no doubt have varied ideas of what "disabled" means. Many feel that if they are unable to do what they used to do for a living, or what they think they would like to do for a living, because of a disability, they are unable to earn a living, so they settle for "making a living" by receiving a check, and the effort to earn a living ends there.

If I lost my gift of eyesight, it would be very difficult to learn how to cope, followed by how to earn my way in life. I like to think I could do it, but I don't know that.

You are welcome to continue feeling that my attitude has some connection with why there is homelessness. Though I suspect some part of you must understand that is silly, as well as part of you does understand that there is plenty of free food and clothing available for people with no money.

All that is required is to look for it, or ask for it. Logically then it is clear that people who are begging for money are doing so because they want money, not because they are starving or perishing from exposure. Why do they want money? To buy the things that are not available free. That's fine, but IMO for the most part giving beggars money will perpetuate begging.

I think those who have a deep caring about the matter should try teaching them to fish.

Demi, I think you are missing the point. Most homeless people are not in a position to hold a typical job. The point is that the necessaries of life, in most inhabited parts of north america, are available for free to people who are impoverished (no need for the degrading begging routine). Or even to anybody. There is whole movement around eating out of the trash.

There's a whole of lot people out there who are really, really stupid.

I saw an article the other day that said that, "One out of four adults in California is a high school dropout." I don't know what you can really do about stupidity.

From Ohiomom's link,

"Their aim, in addition to raising awareness and learning about what homeless people truly experience, was to provide aid to an exceptionally needy case, which they were able to do for a mother of four. They found her living in an SUV in a Walmart parking lot with her kids, ages 13, 8, 7, and 1, and were able to immediately get the family into a hotel. Next they’ll provide a donor-funded apartment and pay the rent for two years, and Metcalfe will hire the mom to work at his downtown food market."

Reminding me of a story I heard a couple nights ago about struggling people. One woman had three kids, aged about 9, 7 and 1. The father of the first two was in prison. The father of the youngest was gone. The woman was making less than $8 an hour at her job.

Demi, people without any disabilities are having a hard enough time finding employment which affords self sufficiency.

What company is hiring new employees for all these jobs you feel are available even to those who are handicapped? Are the hours and pay enough to cover the more basic of needs?

I thought the rate of full time employment or any employment capable of providing self sufficiency in the state of Louisiana was not at a level considered average when compared to the rest of the country, but I certainly may be mistaken on that or all my points.

"Seemingly, a couple of posters here think all disabled people are destined to be bag packers in supermarkets. This kind of attitude and ignorance floors me."

Can't be; hostafrenzy. Bagging groceries is not a job for disabled people, unless you're referring to mentally disabled, and even then, there are certain constraints. One of our local supermarkets has a few developmentally disabled baggers, but they have to be aware enough to put eggs and lettuce on top, etc.

A person with a "bad back" probably shouldn't bag groceries all day. They could certainly do computer work I would think, with correct seating and adequate breaks in the routine.

Actually, it's easier for a disabled person to get a job than an "able-bodied" one in some cases. My DIL has no left arm and is always employed. She's not a rocket scientist, but she's got smarts and a high school education and wants to work. Accomodations are made, she often gets the job. She is not on any sort of public assistance, including disability; her choice.

Elvis, good for your DIL and absolutely no snark exists in that statement. I think its simply wonderful that she has always been employed and self supporting and that accommodation are willingly made is a testament to her personality, character and willingness to do what it takes.

However, Im not sure that this is the average response to people with her disability or more profound disabilities. There are returning vets with disabilities who are unable to find work despite a great deal of public support behind them. It is incredibly discouraging for disabled war vets, and for the disabled who do not have the words " war vet" to their resume, It must be that much more so.
It takes a willingness of spirit on the part of the employer, as it is almost impossible to legally prove out a prejudice of any sort.

"for the disabled who do not have the words " war vet" to their resume, It must be that much more so."

She's not a vet; I wonder if I gave that impression. As far as discrimination laws go, according to a family member in the EEOC, age discrimination is actually the tough one to prove. Vets, war or no, are given extra points when testing for civil service jobs; I lost out to a vet once, that way (post office job).

That's my point. You are "viewing" it on tv and the internet. You don't want to live with it. You won't live with it but sit there and go on and on and on and on about how everyone here should live with it and fix it.

You fix it, from your comfy chair in front of the tv and computer on the farm far far away from it all.

"What is true is that there is a serious shortage of jobs and it is naive, at best, to think that anyone who wants to work can."

No, what is true is that there is a serious shortage of jobs for uneducated peoplewho won't move, jobs that will let the person be self-sufficient. From what I learned today, there are going to be tons of decent jobs in Hawaii over the next few years.

There is not a serious shortage of jobs today, neither in Canada or the US, for educated people.

Demi, people without any disabilities are having a hard enough time finding employment which affords self sufficiency.

What company is hiring new employees for all these jobs you feel are available even to those who are handicapped? Are the hours and pay enough to cover the more basic of needs?

I thought the rate of full time employment or any employment capable of providing self sufficiency in the state of Louisiana was not at a level considered average when compared to the rest of the country, but I certainly may be mistaken on that or all my points.

*

Mylab--I see handicapped people working all the time. Several stores here hire nothing but handicapped people to do jobs they can do--mentally and physically handicapped or both.

The problem seems to be you are separating the people out by asking questions about whether their needs can be met by ONE job, etc.

Handicapped people are just like any other people!
They just have a handicap.
If they can do the work, if they are able to physically
perform the work and mentally perform the work,
and accommodations are made if they need them (ramps
for wheelchairs,etc.) why should they be guaranteed
enough money to pay their needs anymore than any
other non handicapped person?

What's more, they're likely to be eligible for some sort of
welfare if they are handicapped--not always, but sometimes.

I see no relevance to the ranking of the state of Louisiana's employment to this discussion; I was referring to handicapped people being capable of working.

The ones which I described are, and there are plenty of people willing to hire them.

Heck, much of the population operates at the level of an IQ from 70s to 80s anyway and dropped out of school.

This is the hiring pool, and they do fine in service jobs, some construction jobs, stocking, etc.

My point was and remains unless you're totally mentally and physically incapacitated you can do SOMETHING.

"What is true is that there is a serious shortage of jobs and it is naive, at best, to think that anyone who wants to work can."

Call me naive, at best. Every single time I go out shopping or whatever, I will always see at least one job posted. They may not be jobs you want, but jobs are there.

There's nothing that says you can't create your own job. Millions of people have done that. Millions and millions and millions.

"I'm a high school dropout, and indeed it seems true that there isn't much you can do about me."

I'm aware that you didn't finish high school. I'm aware, too, that there's not much we can do about you. Don't take it personally. There are plenty of very successful people who didn't finish high school or college.

"That's my point. You are "viewing" it on tv and the internet. You don't want to live with it. You won't live with it but sit there and go on and on and on and on about how everyone here should live with it and fix it. You fix it, from your comfy chair in front of the tv and computer on the farm far far away from it all."

What do you mean, "you don't want to live in it"? I couldn't AFFORD to live in it, for starters! I wasn't born in the city, which makes it an environment I'm not used to. Were I to take your poor advice and move to the city, I'd instantly be one of those homeless you aren't comfortable living in the midst of. What part of all that do you not understand?!

What, do you think only the city has homeless or other problems? That's a very naive way to think.

And if you are under some misguided impression that I've only viewed the less fortunate from the comfort of my chair... which isn't comfortable, at all, truth be told... and from pictures on a tv screen, then you haven't been paying attention. Catch up.

jmc01 -- Are you going to tell us why you believe there is a coming employment boom in Hawaii? I think that will be a first for the state. My uncle gave up trying to make a living after living Kauai for ten years after WWII. Many residents today are working three jobs to afford very small homes.

The homeless population in Los Angeles County, contrary to national trends, has increased. Recovering housing market aka rising housing costs is the number one culprit.

Someone needs to do the menial work, but that work doesn't pay enough to live in large areas of the county. Add lackluster public transportation, lack of shelters for the number of homeless, a nonfunctioning county mental health system due to lack of funds (no treatment even when in county jail), and it's the same mess year after year after year.

Requirements for a percentage of units to be "affordable" on new development is a joke as in affordable compare to what. Affordable should be with "low-income" housing so it's not just the middle-class receiving a good price on a rental. Low-income set-aside housing still doesn't solve the problem of condo conversions where apartments are taken out of the market.

The so-called vehicular homeless face their own problems, but are a step up from those sleeping at the beach and in parks.

Santa Barbara has a program where vehicular homeless can stay in certain parking lots and it seems to be working well. Although there's a push for this in Venice, somehow it never happens. I don't know if it's a problem of juridictions - county v city - or opposition to allowing campers and vans overnight at the beach parking lots.

So areas of Los Angeles are becoming mini-Malibus; you're welcome to come here and work for cr@ppy wages, we'll even have a bus stop for you as you travel hours from East Los Angeles, but don't expect to ever live here, not even in your vehicle.

Thank you, Nancy... someone who sees the reality of what's happening out there... not enough shelters, not enough services to help those who want help, or need help... not including those who don't want the help.

I keep hearing how the job market is recovering, how the housing market is recovering... but I don't think those things can be said for every area, and not in the capacity of what's actually affordable from the standpoint of low income... and I'm certainly not seeing much of it... in fact, from a lot of people, I hear that things are getting tougher...

Well, if I must be considered "low-income" or "poverty-level", I'd much rather be in that situation logistically where I know I can survive... thrive, even, without having to depend on civilization so much.